California Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat from San Jose, has introduced legislation that would require every state to form "independent" commissions that would draw legislative and Congressional district lines. The federal power play comes just as California is struggling with a half-dozen measures that would take the once-a-decade job away from the majority power, Democrats.
Democrats are worried that ending their power to draw district lines — or cementing the power of Republicans in some Red states — could jeopardize their continued control of Congress. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she wants a national model rather than a piecemeal approach in all 50 states. Right now, California's legislative districts are drawn by Assembly and Senate leaders using sophisticated computer programs weighing population, demographics and party affiliation.
Lofgren's proposal would create bipartisan redistricting commissions in every state. Her office said each party's representatives on the commission would be chosen by members of the opposing party; that the commissions may also include independents or third-party candidates; that commission members may not hold elected office and would be prohibited from doing so until the next redistricting; and that the redistricting commissions must conduct public meetings and solicit public comment.
"An ad-hoc state by state approach rewards those that have used, and will continue to use, redistricting as a partisan political tool," Lofgren said in a statement. "By requiring nationwide independent commissions, we level the playing field for all, regardless of political party. A comprehensive redistricting commission approach will promote an open, fair, and depoliticized process."
The bill is cosponsored by 22 members of congress, including Reps: Jim Costa (D-CA); Bob Filner (D-CA); Tom Lantos (D-CA); Betty McCollum (D-MN); Jerry McNerney (D-CA); George Miller (D-CA); Hilda Solis (D-CA); Ellen Tauscher (D-CA); and, Henry Waxman (D-CA), Lofgren's office said.
California politicos are wrangling over several initiatives and legislative measures that would transform how lawmakers draw legislative districts. One would choose mapmakers from a sort of super-jury of 160,000 registered voters; another would have the Little Hoover Commission draw the lines; still another favors county registrars of voters as the mapmakers.
Does Congress have the power to mandate how California should draw its districts? The U.S. Constitution says nothing about the process of actually redrawing the lines; it only requires that Congressional districts be apportioned every decade after each census. However, it does required that "the times, places and manner
of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be
prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress
may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the
places of choosing Senators." (Emphasis added.)
Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-Los Angeles) issued a statement about the plan: "Our system of redistricting congressional and legislative districts is broken — not just in California but across the nation. I applaud Congresswoman Lofgren for taking a bold step in introducing legislation to implement national redistricting reform. Representatives elected in other states under unfair schemes are likely to be more partisan and less willing to work with California's representatives. ..."
The five-car pileup over drawing legislative and Congressional district lines could get more complicated with another initiative that has been written by political advisors close to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Right now, that secret initiative is on hold while Schwarzenegger and the Legislature consider the various plans for changing California's complicated redistricting process - something the governor says he wants done this year.
The initiative was crafted by prominent GOP attorney Tom Hiltachk, along with political consultant Rob Stutzman, the former communications director for Schwarzenegger, and initiative strategist Rick Claussen. All three have ties to the Republican governor, but the initiative was written independently of his office, sources said. In addition, prominent Democratic consultant Garry South advised on the plan.
Broadly, the new initiative would require the state's Fair Political Practices Commission to create a citizens commission that would draw legislative lines (one version excludes Congress, another includes federal districts.) The five-member commission would hire six other people to create an 11-member panel.
Those additional panelists would include one member from academia with experience in redistricting, one attorney with the same type of experience, and four city or county elections officials - two from high-density areas and two rural. The membership would have to be balanced between Republicans and Democrats.
The initiative has been circulating in the administration and among good-government groups.
If unleashed, it would join redistricting initiatives written by political watchdog Ted Costa, along with other "citizens commissions" being considered in the Legislature by Schwarzenegger, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, Senate leader Don Perata (pictured with Schwarzenegger), and Republicans. One, supported by Nunez, would shift redistricting to the Little Hoover Commission. It's all being closely watched by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who doesn't want the lines for Congressional members drawn by anyone other than Democratic leaders until a "national solution" is created.
The Fair Political Practices Commission has a fairly nonpartisan reputation, but is considered a weak enforcer of the state's campaign finance laws because it has been chronically underfunded. It's current membership includes chairman Ross Johnson, a former Republican lawmaker appointed by Schwarzenegger. His term ends Jan. 31, 2011 - before the redistricting process would begin in full. It would be difficult to find an elections attorney without some partisan affiliation, but perhaps Rick Hasen is available.
The Hiltachk-Stutzman-Claussen-South redistricting measure was designed in part to be a hammer that would force the Legislature to deal with redistricting. Some Republicans are worried that voters will be faced with only altering California's term limits law without making other major reforms. But they are holding their fire, sources said, because the administration first wants to work a compromise in the Legislature.
But it doesn't appear the FPPC option would make it to the February ballot - time is running out to collect signatures.
(Photo: Rich Pedroncelli/AP)
U.S. Term Limits is announcing a lawsuit today over Attorney General Jerry Brown's "title and summary" of an initiative headed that would alter California's 17-year-old term limits law. There is no real science on whether voters use the title and summary paragraph to make decisions - but most political consultants believe it makes a difference on under-publicized or complicated initiatives.
The lawsuit, to be unveiled at 10 a.m. today, is expected to say the wording is misleading and should be altered to reflect a "weakening" of the law. Right now, it emphasizes exactly what Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, a major backer of the initiative, wants
California voters to hear: it would "limit" and
"reduce" the terms of lawmakers - strengthening the law.
The first two sentences: "LIMITS
ON LEGISLATORS' TERMS IN OFFICE. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Reduces the total amount of time a person may serve in the state
legislature from 14 years to 12 years."
But the initiative also would effectively extend the terms of several lawmakers, including Nunez and Senate leader Don Perata (pictured above). That's the whole reason it's being rushed for the February ballot - it would give them time to run for reelection when they would otherwise be forced to leave. There is nothing about this in the summary, which is produced by government attorneys in Brown's office.
The initiative, which is being managed by Democratic political consultant Gale Kaufman, is designed to be "clean." It doesn't have any sweeteners for skeptical voters, such as reducing the perks given to lawmakers or adding restrictions on lobbying. It's just about term limits.
This has been a behind-the-scenes debate between Nunez and Perata - with some advisors to the Senate leader believing California voters would need something else before they altered the vaunted term limits law. So far, a series of somewhat encouraging polls and the favorable title and summary have offered good news to Nunez's camp.
(Photo:
Rich Pedroncelli/AP)
The California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. has donated $100,000 to an initiative campaign that would alter the state's term limits law--and extend the power of Senate leader Don Perata and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, both facing retirement from the Legislature.
Yesterday, the same day the $100K donation was publicly reported (PDF) by the union, Nunez and Perata unveiled a plan that would force 8,000 inmates into lockups out of state. The CCPOA, not surprisingly, hates this part of the Nunez-Perata prison overhaul--it takes away their best customers.
"We are going to do everything we can to point out the dangers of this plan," Lance Corcoran with the union told The Times. He said prisoners who don't want to move could create peril for officers: "We're going to have to fight them out of their cells," he said.
The CCPOA contribution to the Committee for Term Limits & Legislative Reform was made April 11, and reported yesterday.
 Another California city is setting standards well beyond the voter-approved "Jessica's Law" that bans registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools and parks. The new statewide law cannot be applied to people who lived within the zone before voters approved Proposition 83 last November, but it restricts new residents from moving in and requires lifetime GPS tracking of sex offenders.
The city council in San Marcos has approved a 300-foot "safety net" around public and private schools, parks and school bus stops. The ban would apply regardless of whether children are present, the San Diego Union-Trib reports today. Santee, La Mesa, National City and unincorporated San Diego County also have approved 300-foot bans, while Chula Vista's zone is 500 feet from where children gather.
The city-by-city, county-by-county regulations are another case study in California's weird ballot initiative process. Proposition 83 allowed local communities to set their own standards, but it also made an explicit statement approved overwhelmingly by voters statewide: The zone should be 2,000 feet. The map, for example, shows every county except San Francisco supported Jessica's Law.
But would voters have approved Prop. 83 if the zone had been only 300 feet for the entire state? California now is creating a patchwork of laws for sex offenders--which is likely to push them to rural communities that are doing nothing to tweak Prop. 83.
 This is one of those stories where few people involved are really speaking the truth in public.
I know Nevada County and the Gold Country foothills pretty well, and there is no question that a lot of residents in the backwoods are growing marijuana for sale--a lot of it. And many people are doing it legally through California's Proposition 215, the medicinal marijuana law.
But "supporters of medicinal marijuana" packed a City Hall meeting in Nevada City last night to protest a proposal to reduce the amount of marijuana a patient would be allowed to keep on hand. The Union newspaper follows the story: "Supporters of medicinal marijuana, most of whom did not want to be identified and asked that their pictures not be taken, freely voiced their criticism of law enforcement and the proposed changes, which would reduce the number of plants allowable by law enforcement from the current limit of five to 10 plants to a new limit of six mature plants or 12 immature plants.
"Users are currently allowed to have two pounds of dried pot on hand, while the proposed change would reduce the dried amount to eight ounces. The standards are supposed to allow for a year's supply of marijuana.
" 'Eight ounces? I can't work with that,' shouted one man. 'Marijuana helps me survive.'
"Many said they could easily smoke eight ounces in a month."
An ounce of marijuana is a large amount. Eight ounces is an extraordinary amount to have sitting around, and two pounds borders on ridiculous for one person. If you're sick enough to require being that baked all day, your problems are far greater than marijuana can handle.
Some people do need marijuana to control pain. And growers may produce more than they need to make up for fluctuating crop yields due to deer, disease, weather and theft. Growing outdoors, for example, can mean only one crop a year in Northern California.
But the unspoken truth is many others are using the 10-year-old, randomly enforced California law to grow pot for sale to people who aren't sick. Just say it.
(Photo: Claudio Peri/EPA)
 The first big campaign contributions are rolling in for an initiative that would alter California's 1990 term limits law, allowing lawmakers to serve 12 years in either house. The initiative, which also would extend the power of Senate leader Don Perata and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (pictured), received a nod of approval yesterday from AG Jerry Brown.
Not surprising, the donations are coming from public employee unions. On Monday, the California State Council of Service Employees Issues Committee, representing one of the largest unions in the state, contributed $200,000 to the Committee for Term Limits and Legislative Reform. Another $50,000 came from the California School Employees Assn., which represents the cafeteria workers, attendance clerks, office staff, janitors and other "classified" employees.
View PDF filings of contributions here and here. It takes about $1.5 million to place an initiative on the ballot. The term limits effort is expected to eventually attract many millions - from all corners of the establishment, not just unions.
(Photo: Rich Pedroncelli/AP)
Attorney General Jerry Brown just gave the Democratic leadership in the Legislature a significant assist in their efforts to alter California's term limits law.
The title and summary of a proposed term limits initiative has just been released by Brown's office, and it emphasizes exactly what Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez wants California voters to hear: that the initiative would "limit" and "reduce" the terms of lawmakers. The first two sentences: "LIMITS ON LEGISLATORS' TERMS IN OFFICE. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Reduces the total amount of time a person may serve in the state legislature from 14 years to 12 years."
The title and summary does not mention that Nunez and Senate leader Don Perata would see their terms extended under the initiative, which is expected to be on the Feb. 5 presidential primary ballot. Both leaders are scheduled to leave the Legislature next year, unless voters approve the alteration of the 1990 law and allow them to stay in their current houses. The initiative campaign is being run by Nunez's political advisor, Gale Kaufman.
To be sure, voters make their decisions in the ballot box for many reasons. But the title and summary, which is produced by attorneys in Brown's office, often provides a critical guide to voters who make up their minds at the last minute. As one Democratic operative emailed Political Muscle today, the title and summary released today is "as good as it gets."
A new poll by the Survey and Policy Research Institute at San Jose State University shows bare-minimum support for changing California's term limits law - but support nevertheless. This is the third poll in recent days on the controversial initiative, which would allow lawmakers to serve 12 years in the Senate or the Assembly, instead of 14 years divided between two houses.
The institute said California voters favor altering the law by a margin of 51-36%. The initiative was described as "a proposal to allow elected officials to spend no more than 12 years in either the state Assembly or Senate – a reduction from the maximum 14 years legislators may now spend in the two houses combined."
Not surprisingly, how the initiative is described seems to make a difference in how voters respond in surveys: 
"That result is similar to a report from David Binder Research, which conducted a poll for the term limits coalition. Binder, whose question was similar to SPRI’s, found the measure leading 59-33%. But both surveys conflict with a result from the respected Public Policy Institute of California which found voters strongly opposed to the measure by a margin of 66-29%."
This means the title and summary of the initiative from the Attorney General's office - which is still being written - could be critical. Many voters base their decisions on the way initiatives are described on the ballot and in the voter pamphlet. High-ranking elected officials who could see their power extended under the initiative, including Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (pictured), will be watching the AG's language closely.
The institute surveyed 574 individuals identified as voters as part of its quarterly California Consumer Confidence Survey, March 26-30 in English, Spanish and Vietnamese. The margin of error for all voters in the survey is plus-or-minus 4 percentage points.
"Voters like term limits," said Phil Trounstine, director of the institute. "If they see this measure as
a way for legislators to lengthen their terms, it's likely to fail. If they see the measure as a further
limit on legislative terms, it stands a chance of passing. It all comes down to how the message is
framed."
(Photos: Rich Pedroncelli/AP)
Feel like gambling with someone else's retirement? A rocket scientist and amateur poker player in San Diego says he might have the answer for California's teachers and veterans.
Tony Sandstrom—known online as Tuff Fish—has introduced an initiative that would bolster the public pension system for teachers and help California veterans by setting up a government website for online poker. It would act sort of like the California Lottery, and presumably give poker enthusiasts a legal arena. Currently, online poker is a legally murky venue where U.S. players are not allowed to gamble for money.
They do it in Sweden, where the government's online poker site made nearly $700 million in profits last year.
The California site would collect fees or a "rake" from the gambling site and direct 45% to the California State Teachers Retirement System for retirees with lower-than-average pensions. Another 45% would be directed to veterans homes, mental health programs for retired military personnel and, specifically, to purchase artificial limbs and hearing aids for veterans. The final 10% cut would be directed to gambling addiction programs. PDF version of the initiative here.
Sandstrom doesn't plan to spend much money getting the initiative qualified for the ballot. But he hopes the large population of teachers and various veterans groups in California would get jazzed about it. To me, it's doubtful the teachers unions would even consider spending millions of dollars to overcome the inevitable opposition from gambling tribes and legal card rooms.
In an interview, Sandstrom nevertheless said, "There is some serious money" to be made if California set up its own government poker site similar to a monopoly site in Sweden. (It's true there is money to be made. I knew a guy in college, Russell DeLeon, who started an online poker site with his wife. They are now billionaires. He doesn't return my calls.)
Videos of Sandstrom's online poker techniques are a popular subject on YouTube. The 61-year-old aerospace engineer said he would not profit from the initiative. "I probably have spent less money on poker," he said, "than my buddy has spend on his boat."
(Photo: Karen Bleier/AFP-Getty Images)
|
|
|
Democrats are worried that ending their power to draw district lines — or cementing the power of Republicans in some Red states — could jeopardize their continued control of Congress. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she wants a national model rather than a piecemeal approach in all 50 states. Right now, California's legislative districts are drawn by Assembly and Senate leaders using sophisticated computer programs weighing population, demographics and party affiliation.
Our Blogger